Occupy Mumnset - Mumsnet, i know you are P(p)olitical. Seriously, can't you tell your advertisers to fuck off if they are workfaring?

[Tortington]

i got an e-mail telling me i had % of retailers that are involved in the workfare scheme and it occured to me that Mumsnet is usually on the side of good

oh staff of MN you know me well, whilst i was disappointed that the Maccy D advertising question was even asked, i wasn't arsed tbh. i've always shouted 'its a business not a charity' ...

but this is different - It is very very wrong, and you are perpetuating the wrongness by advertising them.

Good Morning Comrades

Chris Grayling has been on radio 4 this morning to trumpet his extremist right wing views!

The world according to Chris Grayling, "opposition to this comes from a small group of socialist workers supporters"

The man's coo coo.

I am horrified by the mnivorytower's response.

And what about your interns' tax position, Mumsnet Towers?

I really would like some answers to the very specific questions I have asked.

I'd like to know salaries at MN towers too, but I won't actually ask that...

I think MN gave a good response, which I agree with.

It is clear workfare is being abused by some employers. But I don't agree that when working at a supermarket everything you can learn only takes 2 hours. I have worked with long term unemployed people on genuine training placements. For some of them the "training" they needed was much more about appropriate behaviour in the workplace than the actual training for the job. For example, you do need to turn up on time; you can't sit and play on your phone all day; you do need to shower regularly, etc. It certainly took more time supporting them than any free labour we got back.

Exactly Lesley. Some people need to start from scratch when it comes to being made employable, because they haven't been taught basic courtesy and responsibility at home. If a company has to instil the very basics into people before they have any chance of being employable, they should be paid for that.

I think compelling people to stack shelves on nightshift for £67 a week is immoral.

It is immoral. I am about to work a 9-hour nightshift which I find exhausting to the point that at about 4am I will be feeling ill. But I will be well paid for it and therefore cannot complain.

Since when is work experience required for stacking shelves? This ain't law or medicine.

These 'jobs' should be minimum wage. I thought we were a civilised country

( and this has been going on for years - social worker friend had clients working in Tesvo warehouse for months in return for JSA. No job at the end. Just another rejection)

It's not a hard job, but that's not the point. There are people that have so few skills that they would struggle to even stack shelves well.

Something needs to be done about that, or they will never be employable and will be a drain on society for their entire lives.

Plenty of people work night shifts, it's not that bad! You just have to manage your time properly. And again, it's better than people sitting at home doing nothing.

For £67 a week???

Tell me, why do we have minimum wage in this country? And why are these people not worth that?

I would support 'Work Experience in return for minimum wage or above. I do not support the government paying Tesco for the privilege of having people work for them.

I agree about some people having few of the basics. But that is not true of the unemployed in general - we are not all the great unwashed!

MN, I think your heart may be in the right place, but I still have many misgivings. The DWP are probably overjoyed that you are saving them money, and keeping the unemployment figures articially that bit lower. You will have to keep training your interns - or are the outgoing ones going to train the incoming ones?

Well, Chris Grayling did at least explain on the radio this morning that there is more than one type of scheme up and running, including work experience schemes where work experience is actually sought for people in the areas in which they wish to work. I doubt much money is expended on doing that properly, though (eg ensuring the providers actually provide proper work experience). He also sounded deeply unconvincing with respect to his knowledge of how the more compulsory "work experience" is structured. I seriously doubt all the Workfare placements involve candidates being given a nice guided tour round all the departments and trying their hand at everything, from personnel and accounts to shelf stacking. I think his little description of utopia probably bore more resemblance to the sort of work experience offered by firms like Sainsbury's, which have refused to opt into the Government schemes because they already have properly organised schemes of their own.

Do the likes of Tesco and Poundland already have schemes up and running alongside the Government schemes, or schemes that have been amalgamated into the Government schemes? Or have they been asked to hash something together from nothing without having to employ people to actually make it a properly co-ordinated experience? Which schemes are they involved with? Which schemes are they now dropping out of? Have they bothered to make any effort on this, or are they expecting and willing to receive the lowest common denominator of candidate, who are unlikely to make it beyond the 2nd day of their placement? What proportion of the people taking part in these schemes are from the category of people who come from generations worth of the long term unemployed? (And is there a blanket ban on convicted shoplifters working in retail?!...).

I still have a million more unanswered questions than satisfactory answers and am still deeply confused. Yes, I think some people do need help seeing that a structured day, where you have a reason to get out of bed (if you are not so dysfunctional as to have failed to acquire a bed for your house) and feel that you are doing something useful, is good for your health and an attainable objective. But I don't see ill thought out work experience made, increasingly, a compulsory experience, as a great panacea. You probably get more useful and personally emotionally rewarding work experience doing a community service sentence. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if a stint stacking shelves for Tesco on the nightshift didn't confirm in the minds of the dysfunctional, long term unemployed that working for someone else is sh*te (and that's probably why the experience seems to be becoming more and more compulsory and less and less optional).

Anyone got a link showing that the government is actually paying the likes of Tesco for particpating in the work programme? Thanks in advance.

I will see what I can find bradbourne, they are given "incentives" plus they are saving in paying their own staff for the work, which means tax and NI contributions are saved too, they profit out of this in more ways than just getting a cash incentive.

Trying not to choke on my Fairtrade coffee (fairtrade is about better prices, decent working conditions, local sustainability, and fair terms of trade for farmers and workers in the developing world. If you think that is a good thing, then why does it not apply in this country too?)

Well many of those in work will agree with them then. IME, in all sorts of jobs at all levels, working for someone else is very likely to be sh*te.

My last job was a very very flexible part-time one, doing stuff I loved, though overstretched as I was doing my co-worker's work - she was on LT sick. I have mh issues, and have always found f/t employment led to clinincal depression. Iin spite of the extreme stress of that job I managed to do my job well, and earn the equiv of ~£25K pro rata ie about 12K. It helped that I was employed by a well-known mh charity, who of course really did understand.

So working was shite, because of the stress of the circumstances, but not because of the people I worked with. When I was TUPEed, same job different employer, my working conditions were unsuitable (confidential work in an office shared with another group), and most managers had little understanding of the difficulties I was facing. I too went LT sick, and then onto ESA (CB). From my job being bearably shite but kind of enjoyable, it turned into my job being unendurable.

I realise my mh must make a difference here - but when I was young I looked forward to being able to work, I thought it would clear my depression, which I had since childhood, not make it ten times worse. I made it into my ideal job, university lecturer, but am glad now depression stopped my progression. Working in a uni has now become another shite job, either not paid to research, or having to churn out publications for the sake of it, teaching mixed ability students...

*many of those in work will agree with the unemployed (dysfuntional or not)

(Still looking and getting distracted by other reports)

Even The New Statesman casts doubt on the fairness of these schems "The element of compulsion involved (keep working or you'll lose your benefits) offends against basic fairness. Unless ministers concede this point, they could soon have a workfare programme without any work."

Mrs Kitchen Roll, if people lack such basic skills, ask yourself this, why?

Is it just the fault of their parents?
Have they been let down in education?
Did sure start and other schemes step in and offer early intervention at that time when they needed to?
Did Social workers only concentrate their help on those most at risk and ignored the growing number of children on the margins?

What difference does it make why some people are unemployable? The fact is that some people are and something needs to be done about that.

There will be a variety of reasons and a variety of solutions. This seems like it could be one of the very good solutions.

I doubt it's SureStarts fault though. They weren't even around when my ds was a baby and he's only 9.

Just read this ; ""forced or compulsory labour is illegal under Section 71 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 in England, and section 47 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010.Remember ?forced or compulsory labour is defined as:
?ALL WORK OR SERVICE WHICH IS EXACTED FROM ANY PERSON UNDER THE MENACE OF ANY PENALTY AND FOR WHICH THE SAID PERSON HAS NOT OFFERED HIMSELF VOLUNTARILY?"

It is voluntary though. People might lose benefits if they don't want to do it, but they still have a choice. Some people will chose not to do it and struggle along on a partners wage, or will fall back on their parents if they can.

For some people the choice won't really feel like they have much choice but that's no different to the rest of the working population who have no choice but to go to work to keep a roof over their heads and feed themselves.

People on benefits who dont work are not entitled to more choice than the rest of us that have to work to pay for our lives.

Yes Ktchen tehre are people with such basic skill shortages

OTOH I have a good degree, close to finishing my MA and might end up on WorkFare under the UC criteria.

I suspect my skills are quite adequate.

Indeed I had a letter today from Carer's 9claimed on my son's HR Care claim) telling me I would be happier if I worked; really? Whilst I recognise that ds1 has not ahd a mjor meltdown and caused actual injury to someone now for almost 12 hours (DS2 went in with bruising to his eye and had a bloodied nose after ds1 attempted to break his nose and I failed to get tehre fast enough as I had ds4 on my lap) , I think I might need a bit more than that before I accept my work here is done!

SureStart do soem excellent work.

Am not pretending they ONLY do excellent work or that all schemes are equal but I had an ofice and some funding from them and saw a lot of valuable input from them, from breastfeeding classes for teenagers, specialist health visitor input for mums with PND, parenting classes for teenage fathers, intensive work with mums who ahd been resettled in our area from refuges, support groups for aprents of disabled children..... lots of really good stuff.

Yours might be but you are not everyone.

I don't think this is a good scheme for everyone, but then the programmes are not all identical so I would hope that they can be tailored to an individual as much as possible. No system is ever going to be perfect for everyone, that not a reason to not use them at all.

It's not a good reason to roll them out to everyone, either. But who's willing to spend the money on tailoring schemes to the needs of individuals?

Oh and my response to MNHQ

Actually I also value work experience and internships; personally I would ADORE a palcement a day a aweek of that type within a decent charity or similar using my pretty high level skills in the field of autism.

But what petrifies me is that I may HAVE to take an unpaid FT post next eyar when people on Carer's fall under the criteria, and that will mean DH has tos top working, and in his field 6 weeks out is a closed business- that's a contract plus tender time gone.

The conditionality- cancelled benefit payments- is wrong IMO, and the changing of definitions of groups such as carers to widen the scheme is foing to really harm people. ATM a carer is someone receiving MR or HR care for someone they care for more than 39 hrs PW; under UC that person will have to receive HR Care.

That willc ause direct harm; the ectension to ESA is going to cause harm and very likely suicides.

I am not a fan of the currernt scheme, but what we have now is a quiet test run for Universal Credit and the plans for that are going to devastate many famillies and vulnerable people.